This website uses features which update page content based on user actions. If you are using assistive technology to view web content, please ensure your settings allow for the page content to update after initial load (this is sometimes called "forms mode").
Additionally, if you are using assistive technology and would like to be notified of items via alert boxes, please follow this link to enable alert boxes for your profile.

This website uses features which update page content based on user actions. If you are using assistive technology to view web content, please ensure your settings allow for the page content to update after initial load (this is sometimes called "forms mode").
Alert box notification is currently enabled, please follow this link to disable alert boxes for your profile.

Open Government Blog

We are very excited about the opportunity to dialog with you our stakeholders – employees, unions, the public, academia, other agencies, and non-profit organizations – to create a more transparent, participatory, and collaborative Government.

Through our OpenOPM portal (http://www.opm.gov/open/), we fully expect to receive some innovative ideas from our stakeholders that will improve our business processes to better serve the American public.

While this particular plan focuses on the Flagship Initiative, to bring collaboration and knowledge management tools to OPM, many aspects of Human Resource functionality are subjects that need innovation and improvement.

We welcome your ideas and will forward them to the appropriate office within the agency for proper consideration and inclusion in our internal policies and procedures going forward.

Comments

John Q Public

4/8/2010 at 4:51 PM

Please define in exact terms what OPM believes the term "Knowledge Management" means? Document management? Web 2.0? It could mean a plethora of things, so I am just looking for something more concrete.

matthew Perry

4/8/2010 at 5:03 PM

test

Gayle Day

4/11/2010 at 4:25 PM

I have a situation that no one has addressed with me. I understand that the issue to discontinue TIG was dropped. I have also noticed that the student.gov webpage stated that graduates with Bachelor degrees receive grade 7 pay, Masters degree receive grade 9 pay, and Phd receives grade 11 pay. Now my question, what about employees who have experience serving the public and have the same credentials (Masters degree), but can't get past TIG? Why aren't these employees given the same consideration as a graduate who has not served the public? Why is the public servant's degree ignored?
One response I got from upper management was: "that's just the way it is." I have addressed this issue, along with a follow-up, to the Director of Personnel and have not received a response.
I hope that someone will address this issue. Can you direct me to the appropriate person to address this matter?

Austin McMaster

4/11/2010 at 10:21 PM

I am a Vetran and recently received my Associates Degree. I was told that you have an operation called ICE or ICS. It envolves border patrol and transporting patrons back to their home Country. Do you have to have a Bachlors Degree? Or does prior MIlitary expirence and an Associates Degree qualify me?

Kellie Gorka

4/13/2010 at 7:01 AM

Good Morning - I am in need of some assistance with regard to the filing of the SF85P. My question is, when an investigation is undergoing and an individuals circumstance has changed, with regard to finances etc, how might they submit an amendment to the SF85P? Please guide me an informative point of contact or reference point for further questions.
Kind Regards - Kellie A. Gorka

John Cellulitis

4/13/2010 at 12:58 PM

very good initiative by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. My fully support to this plan.

Symon Watson

4/15/2010 at 5:34 AM

Health Reform Betters Children’s Health Care
On February 4th 2009 the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act was signed by President Obama. It is also known as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). It continued medical coverage for over five million children and added at least four million more to the medical coverage. Because of this program there are at least eleven million children insured that would otherwise not be able to afford medical coverage.

c snyder

4/15/2010 at 8:13 AM

what can opm do to get rid of the good ol' boy club... not what you know anymore its who you know that gets you a job . check out ddsp

Kenneth

4/16/2010 at 8:44 AM

I have a question about LWOP. If my Director approves me 80 hours LWOP at once for a disabled vet medical condition, does a certain amount of time have to pass before he can allow me more LWOP at his level. I understand that after so many hours accrued during a year HR must approve? The regulation is rather vague on this issue. Thanks for your assistance

OPM Open Government Team

4/23/2010 at 2:59 PM

@John Q Public: Thank you for your comment regarding the various meanings of the term "knowledge management." OPM plans to explore various technology options available for: a. capturing the internal processes and knowledge of OPM employees so they are available to help others learn, b. housing agency documents centrally so they can be accessible by parties internally and externally, and c. employing tools that enable employees, the public, and other agencies the capability to retrieve and share information as well as work together to build upon each others' ideas.

Kenneth Carden

4/27/2010 at 1:52 PM

We support President Obama’s Executive Order to increase veterans within the Federal work force.
We the members of the Veterans For Fair Employment (VFFE) would like to provide the Interagency Committee with some information that may be helpful in your meetings to change the Veterans hiring process. They are as follows: Streamline the application process, better appeal process, more Veterans Human Resource Technicians in Human Resources Offices, do away with managers directly hiring individual not on the referral list form the Humans Resource Office, Establish a Veteran Advocate position at each CPAC, Veterans hire list for transparency to be posted for veterans at each servicing CPAC.
Streamline the Application Process From the time a veteran self nominates; to the time their resume is selected /non-selected for referral is too lengthy. Many veterans are waiting greater than a month for information. You have too many websites advertising the same thing. Use only the USAJOB website to advertise for employment.
Better Appeal Process The appeal process that is currently in use by the Department of the Army is poor at best. First a computer rates you according to civilian skills instead of military skills. Then you get non-selected for the position you apply for. When you appeal your non-select status you are being hand scored by an individual who has no experience in the field they are hand scoring. One of our members protested this way of doing business so critically; that he was investigated by the Military Police. The investigation was without standing. Many members of the VFFE have been turned down for employment on an average of greater than forty times. None of the VFFE veterans have won a single appeal through the current system. Five members have applied greater than two hundred times in their specialty field only to be non- selected for everything they applied for. One member did get referred for a position he did not apply for, but, he turned it down because he was hired by a civilian firm. He got tired of the lengthy process of attempting to get hired and gave up altogether.
More Veterans in Human Resources Offices If you had more veterans in the Human Resource Offices, we believe the appeal process would be less disputed. In an appeal process veterans would be less likely to argue an appeal if it was a veteran reviewing the appeal other than a non-veteran. Civilian human resource representatives have very limited exposure to the Army and how it really works, and an experienced veteran applicant will asked that Human Resource Specialist what is their experience with the position they are rating. If the Human Resource Specialist has no experience in the field they are hand scoring; the veteran will almost always disagree with their findings and feel they have been overlooked by a non-qualified individual.
Managers and their hiring process Most veterans feel that managers should not hire anyone who is not on the referral list from the servicing CPAC. If managers are allowed to select a veteran or non-veteran who is not on the referral list from the serving CPAC - it causes and extreme amount of distrust with the current hiring process. For lack of better terms this is commonly referred to as the good ole boy network. A manager should not be allowed to add someone to the referral list who has not been self nominated for a position using the CPOL format. Most veterans in the VFFE do not like this way of hiring personnel. It is ok if you have spent half of your military career on one installation, but it is not ok if you use your tenure or contacts on that installation to circumvent the system and get hired ahead of those who use the system as it was designed to be used. Many veterans believe that you should compete just like the other veterans do and may the best resume be selected. You will get a strong argument from retired Sergeant Majors and Colonels who have used the above mentioned way of getting hired. There is just as many retired veterans who are just as qualified as these Sergeants Majors and Colonels who miss out on employment opportunities because of this. Also a manager should not have the leeway to hire someone they know or have served with in the past, It make the whole hiring process with the federal government look like it has no integrity.
Veteran Advocate A veteran advocate should be put in place at each Human Resource Office within the federal hiring system. The veteran will be an employee of the Office of Personnel Management. The veteran will be in place to keep statistics on the veteran hire rate at that servicing CPAC for Transparency. Be a member of the appeal process for the veteran who believes their resume is competitive even though it has been non-selected. Education and training for local veteran associations on resume building and the hiring process. Report all veteran hiring statistics to the Director of Office of Personnel Management.
Veteran Hire Statistic List The veteran hire statistic list will provide transparency for the Veteran that the federal hiring system is being followed correctly. It should be posted on the bulletin within the CPAC. It should also be posted and updated monthly on each servicing CPAC’s website.
Thank-you for your time.
Ken Carden
Vice Commander
Veterans For Fair Employment

Mary Reed

4/28/2010 at 4:02 PM

The time-in-grade restriction should be eliminated or modified as it penalizes current federal employees in lower grades (GS-4/5/6) that have advanced educational degrees as well as experience. However, these employees are not able to advance unless they leave the federal service and apply as an external applicant. The down fall to this is that an individual who just finished college can apply for a job at the GS-7 level with a bachelors degree or GS-9 level with a masters degree but no experience. This policy is so outdated and not economically feasible for current employees. Also, some employees who have fell for the trick and left civil service are still told that they do not qualify because the last grade that they held was at a low civil service level. These employees have bachelors and masters degrees and are told that they do not qualify for non-professional/non-career field jobs. Please elevate this issue up and get it fixed.

Roger Brunstrum

4/30/2010 at 2:53 PM

What are the differences between SF85P and SF86?
May someone who has an SF86, via eQIP, be considered for an SF85P position?
We have persons w/DoD TS clearances in JPAS who would be eligible for performing on work at CBP, where an SF85P Public Trust requirement exists.
Appreciate some clarification on these form differences.

Maria Louella Bacasmas

5/3/2010 at 5:30 PM

Hi, I am an active military spouse and I really need a job. I am a Registered Nurse. I was working in New York since 2007 and my husband is based first here in San Diego after his A school in Mississippi. Since we will be relocating here in San Diego, I resigned from my job in order to be with him and hoping that I can find a job here. I applied in the Navy Medical center in Balboa hoping to get a military spouse preference but I didn't know that MSP is no longer available to me because I should have applied before we moved here. What's the difference with my situation? I am still a military spouse with no job because I need to give up my job because my husband joined the Navy and is relocated here in San Diego. If I have known that this will be my situation, I shouldn't have resigned but I will also be sacrificing my family. I just need help. I have applied with other hospitals too but I am really hoping that I will have better chances at a military hospital because they can fully understand my situation as a trailing military spouse.

Mary Reed

5/4/2010 at 10:42 AM

Maria Louella Bacasmas, The military hospitals have direct hire authority for health care staff such as registered nurses. Contact the local CPAC and Human Resources Manager for the Navy hospital and provide them a copy of your resume. Also, go to chart.donhr.navy.mil and apply for the nursing position under the open continuous annoucement. The VA may be another source for hiring. You may also look for jobs under case manager or program manager that require qualifications of a registered nurse. Good luck in your search.

Cathy Mars

5/4/2010 at 1:35 PM

Hello. My husband just re-enlisted in April. I have been unemployed since October. I need to find an easier way to find a job within the military as a spouse. I have been in health care for the past 10 years but as management. No RN degree was necessary. Could someone guide me please?

Sara

5/4/2010 at 6:57 PM

THANK GOODNESS! Someone is listening to us at last! Applicants should be able to apply for a position and be referred to selecting officials for many vacancies. All this apply, apply, apply, and never getting a call or an acknowledgement is discouraging. Now the POSITION DESCRIPTIONS need to be standardized throughout Government to do away with the specialization requirement that allows managers to select ONNLY who they want by reviewing their candidates qualifications and making the position description fit theie candidate. Vacancy announcements also need to be fixed, many are wrong, have wrong information, and are advertised in the wrong series for the duties they are desiring. Some desired duties do not fit the job duties required. What has happened to this system? Why can't it be standardized at OPM level.

C B

5/4/2010 at 7:06 PM

Please explain the educational qualifications for most job annoucements on USAJobs.gov.
For example for a HR Specialist position it states "you must have one year of specialized experience that has equipped you with the particular knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform successfully..."
OR
"3 full years of related progressively higher level graduate
education leading to such a degree."
What exactly does this mean? Most graduate programs do not last 3 full years, therefore, this requirement puzzles me. Could you give me an example or are you referring to prerequisites courses leading up to a graduate degree? Or is this based only on graduate courses?
Thanks

K C

5/7/2010 at 10:20 AM

First of all I think Director Berry has the right idea have an open blog as to how to fix the Federal Government Hiring Process, especially for veterans.
Why dosen't the Department of the Army resumix system have a blog. If she heard form the veteran first hand as to how the Resumix system does not work for this nations veterans as well as it's private citizens she would scrap it. Lawmakers should scrap the Resumix system for hiring anybody. The only ones that know how to use it are the Human Resource Technicians and people who are currently federl employed. If you asked a human resource person to assist you reference a position-the infamous answer to that is use the Resumix system to answer your question.
Get ride of the answering machines in the human resource offices. Make these people come to the phone and answer applicants questions.

K C

5/7/2010 at 10:29 AM

First of all I think Director Berry has the right idea have an open blog as to how to fix the Federal Government Hiring Process, especially for veterans.
Why dosen't the Department of the Army resumix system have a blog. If she heard form the veteran first hand as to how the Resumix system does not work for this nations veterans as well as it's private citizens she would scrap it. Lawmakers should scrap the Resumix system for hiring anybody. The only ones that know how to use it are the Human Resource Technicians and people who are currently federl employed. If you asked a human resource person to assist you reference a position-the infamous answer to that is use the Resumix system to answer your question.
Get ride of the answering machines in the human resource offices. Make these people come to the phone and answer applicants questions.

Mary Reed

5/7/2010 at 12:36 PM

KC. You are not the only one that has problems with the resumix system--experienced, qualified, current federal employees also have a problem with the system. The HR folks will tell you that the system looks at key words; however, it has been proven that you can use the key words, have the same series as the announced job, perform the same duties and still not be qualified for the job. I agree the database needs to be scrapped and the folks in the HR area should talk to the applicants instead of waiting for the computer to notify them. There are probably many eligible applicants who have lost opportunities through this system. It needs to be revisited.

Mary Reed

5/7/2010 at 12:38 PM

KC. You are not the only one that has problems with the resumix system--experienced, qualified, current federal employees also have a problem with the system. The HR folks will tell you that the system looks at key words; however, it has been proven that you can use the key words, have the same series as the announced job, perform the same duties and still not be qualified for the job. I agree the database needs to be scrapped and the folks in the HR area should talk to the applicants instead of waiting for the computer to notify them. There are probably many eligible applicants who have lost opportunities through this system. The problem also is that no one ever ask the stakeholders how the system is functioning and if it is meeting their needs. The process needs to be revisited.

KC

5/7/2010 at 2:48 PM

You are correct Mary, key words as you refer to are a major problem, but,if you have held the very position in the Army you are applying for as a civilian and it gets turned down, then you appeal the findings to the resumix. Then it get hand scored by a human resource tech who has no expirence in the very field they are hand scoring. If you protest the findings in a severe fasion as I did, you will get investigated by the very by the Military Police as I did by the servicing CPAC, the investigation was without standing. So be careful what you have to say to the Servicing CPAC they do not value the stakeholders opinions, that is why were are using the OPM blog instead of the Army HR blog because there is not one. What is sad that allot of the HR people think this is a good system. People should directly correspond to their representatives and the Director of the United States Civilian Personel Agency, I will tell you will receive a better response from you representative the Director does not answer e-mails nor does she have a blog like Mr. Berry

Ken Carden

5/9/2010 at 12:53 PM

Thank you for the blog Mr. Berry, I think the blog would better serve the public if it was listed as a seperate topic under featured site on the web page. You will get a better response from the public if it is a line tpoic under the featured sites in your web page.
Ken Carden

Mary Reed

5/12/2010 at 8:58 AM

Thank God that President Obama is issuing new guidance regarding the hiring practices in the federal government. This is certainly a step in the right direction. Next, we need to look at Management and Employee relationship procedures. Under president Clinton's adminstration there was a perception of partnership between management and employees. I believe those efforts have gone by the way side. Employees should not have to work in fear because of abusive managers and laws that grant managers absolute power. Neither should training be given to supervisors and managers that are designed to teach managers how to get the people as it is currently being conducted. The government invest many dollars in hiring qualified people and managers should know how to build cohesive teams and develop their employees. As we all know there are many laws on the books that are designed to protect employees, now the system need to make organizations accountable for management employee relations.

Gwendolyn Brantley

5/12/2010 at 10:21 AM

WOW! This is an avenue that will open doors for communication, not only to provide comments but to also hear the same problems and concerns that all the civil service employees feel. There are so many issues within this system, but many of us bear the concerns and just get through the day. There is no real effort to hire within at all. Employees work at the same agency for ten to eighteen years and finally a GS09 develops in your section, performing your duties and a retired E07 who worked with management gets hired instead of the person in the job with a Masters Degreee and also with fifteen years of experience in the section. This is hardly fair and truly unjust. There are Soldiers retiring writing their own job description defined just for them. When the job is announced it is written only for that person ultimately that Soldier is hired. There are creation of jobs for retired Soldiers that have no real function in the Agency/Section/Division. It is just to have a CPT/MAJ/etc. to continue to work in the Government.

Sandy

5/12/2010 at 10:46 AM

What is the difference between Career Conditional and Excepted Employment? I just got turned down for a position that I was qualified for with the VA because I'm currently classified as Excepted not career conditional.

Renee

5/12/2010 at 3:52 PM

I have a MBA and PhD and hold a GS-07 position for DoD I have worked for the federal government for 15 years and yet I am told frequently that I am not qualified for any open positions to which I apply, not even career postions that state you must have a bachelors degree and a GPA of 2.9 to apply.I am eager to see what "real"changes will be done for America to employ an experienced workforce that can compete globally. Which to date I believe we are unable to do;just hiring those we want who are unqualified.

KC

5/12/2010 at 4:17 PM

There is a simple soluton to the federal hiring reform, write your representatives to follow the Reforming Federal, and Hiring, Beyond Faster and Cheaper information paper published by the US Merit Systems Protection Board. It is a report to the President and Congress as to how to fix the federal hiring process. The OPM has the right ideas other federal agencies should follow their lead. The OPM is supposed to provide oversite to all federal agencies reference. Give the OPM the ability to monentary fine agencies who do not meet times lines for hiring and hiring fairly things will change then.
Ken Carden

Mary Reed

5/13/2010 at 9:38 AM

Renee, there are a lot of current federal government employees that are experiencing the same situation that you are; whereas, they have advanced educational degrees, a wealth of knowledge, and years of experience but are not able to advance in their career to journeyman career level positions. I wish President Obama would have OPM establish a apprenticeship program for these current employees. I believe OPM is looking at expanding the Student Training and Academic Recruitment (STAR) program for new college graduates that will be entering into the government for the first time. It appears that these graduates will enter into entry level positions with career advancement potential and possibility could out rank current employees. This could cause morale issues for those current employees who have been waiting for a break. I believe that some type of merit system program should be established for the current career employee with years of experience and a college degree who has been overlooked for years. Establishment of such a program is important to this group of career employees because we must receive and maintain our high 3 salaries in order to be able to retire comfortably.

Cella Bernard

5/13/2010 at 11:00 AM

I would like to start an activist group for these issues and take to the white house for federal employees who are in these situation because I am in this dilemma. I have a doctorate working on a second masters degree. I have apply on the resumix system at least 150 jobs. I am told that I am not qualify. I am a GS-6 level. Something is wrong. I agree with Mary. If anyone is interested to join this group please contact me @ (803) 751-2432. Let's get the ball rolling I take this to the President.

Mary Reed

5/13/2010 at 12:04 PM

Message for Sandy, I copied this excerpt from cpol website regarding excepted service:
The excepted service includes most of the positions in the legislative branch and judicial branch. In addition, there are certain executive branch positions or entire organizations which are in the excepted service by Statute. Examples of excepted service organizations are the Central Intelligence Agency, the Foreign Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Within the Department of the Army certain positions are in the excepted service.
Positions excepted from the competitive service by OPM or by law are placed into three categories, Schedule A, B or C.
Schedule A positions are positions for which it is not practicable to apply the qualification standards and requirements used in the competitive civil service system and which are not of a confidential or policy determining nature. Examples of Schedule A positions are attorneys, intelligence, and faculty members.
Schedule B positions are positions for which it is not practicle to hold open competitive examinations, and the positions are not of a confidential or policy determining nature. The persons appointed to Schedule B positions do have to meet the OPM qualification standards for the position. Students in student employment programs are Schedule B.
Schedule C positions are either key policy determining positions or positions which involve a close personal relationship between the incumbent and key officials. No examinations are required and the agency appoints persons who they determine to be qualified. Political appointees at the sub cabinet level are often Schedule C.
Positions that would ordinarily be in the competitive service are in the excepted service while they are occupied by someone who was appointed under an excepted appointing authority that applies to positions "when filled by" particular individuals.
Within the Department of the Army, the term "excepted position" normally includes those positions paid from appropriated funds which are excepted from the competitive service by Section 8.3 of Civil Service Rule VIII, or Part 213 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or by statute.
Employees in the excepted service normally have no reduction in force assignment rights outside their own competitive level.
Hope this helps you.

Mary Reed

5/13/2010 at 12:05 PM

Message for Sandy, I copied this excerpt from cpol website regarding excepted service:
The excepted service includes most of the positions in the legislative branch and judicial branch. In addition, there are certain executive branch positions or entire organizations which are in the excepted service by Statute. Examples of excepted service organizations are the Central Intelligence Agency, the Foreign Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Within the Department of the Army certain positions are in the excepted service.
Positions excepted from the competitive service by OPM or by law are placed into three categories, Schedule A, B or C.
Schedule A positions are positions for which it is not practicable to apply the qualification standards and requirements used in the competitive civil service system and which are not of a confidential or policy determining nature. Examples of Schedule A positions are attorneys, intelligence, and faculty members.
Schedule B positions are positions for which it is not practicle to hold open competitive examinations, and the positions are not of a confidential or policy determining nature. The persons appointed to Schedule B positions do have to meet the OPM qualification standards for the position. Students in student employment programs are Schedule B.
Schedule C positions are either key policy determining positions or positions which involve a close personal relationship between the incumbent and key officials. No examinations are required and the agency appoints persons who they determine to be qualified. Political appointees at the sub cabinet level are often Schedule C.
Positions that would ordinarily be in the competitive service are in the excepted service while they are occupied by someone who was appointed under an excepted appointing authority that applies to positions "when filled by" particular individuals.
Within the Department of the Army, the term "excepted position" normally includes those positions paid from appropriated funds which are excepted from the competitive service by Section 8.3 of Civil Service Rule VIII, or Part 213 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or by statute.
Employees in the excepted service normally have no reduction in force assignment rights outside their own competitive level.
Hope this helps you.

KC

5/13/2010 at 8:09 PM

Cella, I started an organization called the Veterans For Far Employment. We have published two information papers referece the Resumix hiring process used by the Department of the Army. We have sent both information papers to Directory Barry and the Director of the United States Army Civilian Personnel Agency. We did received conformation from Director Barry's Office in receipt of the paper but the Direcor of Army Civilian personnel Agency does not have a blog to entertain need ideas and the difficulties with the RESUMIX. Be careful of the interduction of need ideas, especially at your local CPAC, because they are not very receptive. Mary Reed is a good resource for current federal employee's just of off what I have read from her on this very blog. Veterans, Current Federal Employee's and external applicants, (Stakeholders)are very dissatisfied with the current process. If you would like a copy of the Information papers we have published my e-mail is cardentwnoaks@aol.com, we are veterans who have stakeholders interests reference the resumix. Ken Cardentwnoaks@aol.com

Ben Johnson

5/26/2010 at 12:03 PM

Job Creating should be the most important thing for our economy now !!

Ben Johnson

5/26/2010 at 12:07 PM

H

Ben Johnson

5/26/2010 at 12:09 PM

H

Terry

6/1/2010 at 1:33 PM

Austin - Go to www.ice.gov/careers/index.htm and follow the instructions for criminal investigator or deportation or detention officers. They don't require a bachelor's degree, but having one helps to be better qualified. Good luck!

HostGator

6/2/2010 at 8:48 AM

That's a good idea to take their advice...sometimes good views we can get....

John

6/5/2010 at 2:26 AM

Where do I take the OPM Apprenticeship Exam. I have a resume in the Resumix database. There are 2 jobs that I want to self nominate for but they require an OPM Apprenticeship Exam. Where do I take that exam?

Barbara Emery

6/8/2010 at 4:36 PM

I hope that someone will address this issue.Can someone from Human Resources (HR) explained the time frame it take to respond to your application. HR area should talk to the applicants instead of waiting for the compute to notify them. HR department is not not very helpful.

Barbara Emery

6/8/2010 at 4:37 PM

I hope that someone will address this issue.Can someone from Human Resources (HR) explained the time frame it take to respond to your application. HR area should talk to the applicants instead of waiting for the compute to notify them. HR department is not not very helpful.

Laura Taylor

6/10/2010 at 1:01 PM

When is the targeted implementation date for this reform because it's way overdue. I have applied for a myriad of federal positions that for the most part I'm vastly overqualified for and never hear anything from anyone, even those I manage to get an interview with.
While I applaud the President's efforts here, unless it's implemented soon, government agencies are losing some outstanding talent it could be utilizing because of the frustrations encountered in attempting to apply for a federal position. A case in point:
I applied for and received a telephone interview for a Health Policy Analyst position with the CDC in November, 2009. The interview didn't occur until 2 months after I had applied for the position. I talked to two faceless individuals who apparently thought I was qualified enough for a face to face interview. That "in-person" interview was scheduled about a month following the telephone interview. The interview site was 30 miles from my home and I arrived early, driving through a monsoonal rain storm to get to the interview. When I got to the building, I was met at the security desk by the administrative assistant who set up the interview who was very apologetic, telling me that one of the people I was to interview with (this was on Friday) was on her "telework" day at home and had called in that morning to take the day off. When I inquired if she had known about that morning's appointment, I was told she did, but had planned on doing her portion of the "in-person" interview by phone at home, but had, for whatever reason, decided to take the day off, leaving the administrative assistant to make her apologies. I was asked if I minded rescheduling. What was I supposed to say - that I DID mind? Of course, I graciously agreed to reschedule the following Monday at 11:30 a.m.
That Monday, I drove another 30 miles (this time minus the rain), arrived on time, only this time there was no one to meet me. I signed in with security and was asked to wait. Someone finally came down 15 minutes later and escorted me to an empty office where I waited another 20 minutes. Finally one woman that was part of the team I was interviewing to be a part of came in and told me she would be conducting the "in-person" part of the interview as the supervisor who was supposed to be there that day for my appointment had decided that day would be her "telework" day and that she'd be talking to me from her phone at home. It was all I could do not to ask if every other candidate for the position had been treated with the same disinterest as I had been. I was asked the very same questions the telephone interview team had asked me and gave the exact same answers. After about a 40 minute interview, I was escorted out and that was it. I never heard another word and found out they had hired someone else from the USA Jobs network on my job status link. I never received an apology for the first interview cancellation (either by letter on in person on the day I was actually interviewed "in person"), and I never even received a letter telling me that someone else had been hired for the position.
Additionally, NO ONE knows what criteria any of these positions are REALLY looking for. I met all of the advertised qualifications for that (and other) positions, yet for many of the positions I have not received interviews for, I am never told why my application was denied. I did get a denial notice from the Department of Labor via e-mail, and when I sent the HR representative an e-mail asking why I had not met the cut-off number utilized for qualification for an interview, she refused to answer my inquiry. It took a phone call from my Congressman's aide to get a response from her concerning my question.
I've worked for state government for nearly 20 years of my career as an attorney, legislative and executive branch policy analyst and agency Legislative Affairs Director, and never in all of my professional experience did I ever receive the kind of offhand treatment as I did with the CDC interview. I've never made an appointment for an interview with someone looking for a position and cancelled it because I decided I wanted to "take the day off" or for any other reason. There is no excuse for any government agency, whose job it is to serve the public to act in such an unprofessional manner.
Again, while I applaud the President's efforts here, I hope he is serious about reforming the process. The CDC has at least six or seven similar positions to the one I interviewed for currently open and I have applied for four others that I never heard anything about - if I was qualified for one position, surely I was qualified for the others - at least enough to warrant an interview. It seems like once you submit the never ending questions they require you to answer for each GS level the position allows (and they questions, therefore the answers are always the same)and then fax all kinds of documentation to the agency in question, my application just disappears. I'm more than willing to take any suggestions you might have on how to successfully go about obtaining a federal position. I believe I have a lot to offer the public through a government agency, have 20 years' state and local government experience and am a licensed attorney. The fact that my experience doesn't fit an extremely narrow criteria qualifying mechanism doesn't mean I cannot do the job. Most of these positions are specifically geared to be promotional since only someone in a lower level position would have the requisite experience to qualify for the position(s) advertised. It would help if they individual these agencies are looking for are in fact seeking specific experience they can only get from someone who already works in a lower level agency position, the least they could do is do an advertisement in house (some do, but many do not) so I won't waste my time and limited resources applying for a position I don't have a prayer of even being considered for.
Thank you for your time. I hope this new policy change works for those of us who would like to reenter public service.

Laura Taylor

6/10/2010 at 1:01 PM

When is the targeted implementation date for this reform because it's way overdue. I have applied for a myriad of federal positions that for the most part I'm vastly overqualified for and never hear anything from anyone, even those I manage to get an interview with.
While I applaud the President's efforts here, unless it's implemented soon, government agencies are losing some outstanding talent it could be utilizing because of the frustrations encountered in attempting to apply for a federal position. A case in point:
I applied for and received a telephone interview for a Health Policy Analyst position with the CDC in November, 2009. The interview didn't occur until 2 months after I had applied for the position. I talked to two faceless individuals who apparently thought I was qualified enough for a face to face interview. That "in-person" interview was scheduled about a month following the telephone interview. The interview site was 30 miles from my home and I arrived early, driving through a monsoonal rain storm to get to the interview. When I got to the building, I was met at the security desk by the administrative assistant who set up the interview who was very apologetic, telling me that one of the people I was to interview with (this was on Friday) was on her "telework" day at home and had called in that morning to take the day off. When I inquired if she had known about that morning's appointment, I was told she did, but had planned on doing her portion of the "in-person" interview by phone at home, but had, for whatever reason, decided to take the day off, leaving the administrative assistant to make her apologies. I was asked if I minded rescheduling. What was I supposed to say - that I DID mind? Of course, I graciously agreed to reschedule the following Monday at 11:30 a.m.
That Monday, I drove another 30 miles (this time minus the rain), arrived on time, only this time there was no one to meet me. I signed in with security and was asked to wait. Someone finally came down 15 minutes later and escorted me to an empty office where I waited another 20 minutes. Finally one woman that was part of the team I was interviewing to be a part of came in and told me she would be conducting the "in-person" part of the interview as the supervisor who was supposed to be there that day for my appointment had decided that day would be her "telework" day and that she'd be talking to me from her phone at home. It was all I could do not to ask if every other candidate for the position had been treated with the same disinterest as I had been. I was asked the very same questions the telephone interview team had asked me and gave the exact same answers. After about a 40 minute interview, I was escorted out and that was it. I never heard another word and found out they had hired someone else from the USA Jobs network on my job status link. I never received an apology for the first interview cancellation (either by letter on in person on the day I was actually interviewed "in person"), and I never even received a letter telling me that someone else had been hired for the position.
Additionally, NO ONE knows what criteria any of these positions are REALLY looking for. I met all of the advertised qualifications for that (and other) positions, yet for many of the positions I have not received interviews for, I am never told why my application was denied. I did get a denial notice from the Department of Labor via e-mail, and when I sent the HR representative an e-mail asking why I had not met the cut-off number utilized for qualification for an interview, she refused to answer my inquiry. It took a phone call from my Congressman's aide to get a response from her concerning my question.
I've worked for state government for nearly 20 years of my career as an attorney, legislative and executive branch policy analyst and agency Legislative Affairs Director, and never in all of my professional experience did I ever receive the kind of offhand treatment as I did with the CDC interview. I've never made an appointment for an interview with someone looking for a position and cancelled it because I decided I wanted to "take the day off" or for any other reason. There is no excuse for any government agency, whose job it is to serve the public to act in such an unprofessional manner.
Again, while I applaud the President's efforts here, I hope he is serious about reforming the process. The CDC has at least six or seven similar positions to the one I interviewed for currently open and I have applied for four others that I never heard anything about - if I was qualified for one position, surely I was qualified for the others - at least enough to warrant an interview. It seems like once you submit the never ending questions they require you to answer for each GS level the position allows (and they questions, therefore the answers are always the same)and then fax all kinds of documentation to the agency in question, my application just disappears. I'm more than willing to take any suggestions you might have on how to successfully go about obtaining a federal position. I believe I have a lot to offer the public through a government agency, have 20 years' state and local government experience and am a licensed attorney. The fact that my experience doesn't fit an extremely narrow criteria qualifying mechanism doesn't mean I cannot do the job. Most of these positions are specifically geared to be promotional since only someone in a lower level position would have the requisite experience to qualify for the position(s) advertised. It would help if they individual these agencies are looking for are in fact seeking specific experience they can only get from someone who already works in a lower level agency position, the least they could do is do an advertisement in house (some do, but many do not) so I won't waste my time and limited resources applying for a position I don't have a prayer of even being considered for.
Thank you for your time. I hope this new policy change works for those of us who would like to reenter public service.

andrew wood

6/14/2010 at 6:12 PM

I have tried repeatedlly to report a change in my mailing address. Despite numerous attempts I have been unsuccessful.
I have been redirected to the site and then there is no response. Is there aanother way to make the transition?

Bonnie Skaggs

6/15/2010 at 7:25 PM

I have contacted OPM several times and in many different ways since 4-27-10.
I retired on Civil Service retirement Annuity Disability in August of 1980. Social security needs a statement , original award letter, or anything on OPM letterhead stating when my disability retirement date began. I have emailed 3 times, faxed 2 times, and called several different numbers. Can you help me?

Pauletta

6/15/2010 at 9:29 PM

Wondering how long does it take to convert a DOE Q clearance to a DOD TS. I am unable to start my new employment until this process is completed.

Gayle Day

6/16/2010 at 5:25 AM

This is the third time contacting OPM about promotion possibilities for current public servants. Your student jobs website list the following: graduates with Bachelor degrees can expect grade 7, Masters Degrees, grade 9, PhD degrees, grade 11. My concern is: what about current federal employees who gained education while serving the public? These employees are penalized by time in grade, and are not given the same opportunity as a graduate who has had no public service experience. No one has addressed this situation as yet. This is inconsiderate of current employees. If a current employee has the same credentials as a new hire, then the current federal employee should be offered the same consideration and opportunity to compete for salaries without regard to time in grade. In this regard, a person right out of college could receive a grade 11, whereas, a current federal employee with same educational credentials would be disqualified because they were not a grade 9 for at least one year. There is no reason to justify such hiring procedures. Since you are "improving" hiring practices, why won't you tackle this? You are ignoring your bright, qualified applicants within the public service. The purpose of human resources management is to acquire the best talent; however, OPM is ignoring talent and resources within.

Lynn Penn

6/16/2010 at 5:01 PM

When is someone going FIX the retire@opm.gov response time for poor federal employees who need assistance? I have never been treated so poorly in my life. 15-20 days for a simple answer! Can't get through on the telephone! Mail gets lost? How can you allow this to happen. I would have been fired if I performed my duties this way and my agency would be reprimanded!! This is the worst customer service I have ever experienced. 30 years of dedicated service in the government got me this group for assistance? I'm still waiting for an answer from May 6th!!

CB

6/23/2010 at 8:42 AM

Gayle Day stated in part that "a person right out of college could receive a grade 11, whereas, a current federal employee with same educational credentials would be disqualified because they were not a grade 9 for at least one year."
I thought the time-in grade requirements were no longer required as long as the person is otherwise qualified. Could someone from OPM confirm this? I am also a current federal employee, GS-11, and will get my masters in HR by the end of this summer. In order for me to get into the HR field (changing careers), I only qualify for a GS-09 (based on education only) yet selecting official still prefer applicants with experienced as opposed to education. Most federal government employees, like myself, get advance degrees to advance or change careers, so wouldn't it be a competititive advantage for the federal government to retain explicit and tacit knowledge that most federal government employee possess?

Maxolash

6/25/2010 at 3:52 AM

Very interesting article,all the information is so beneficial and valuable for us.presentation of article is attractive,so I will bookmark it for sharing it with my family and with my friends.Thanks for sharing nice.

prozestra

7/9/2010 at 4:26 AM

I am really enjoying reading your well written articles. It looks like you spend a lot of effort and time on your blog.

OpenOPM Team

8/12/2010 at 5:53 PM

We recently removed a comment requesting that you fill out a survey that a member of the public provided in reference to an earlier post. We did so because the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to obtain clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect information from the public in cases such as surveys. We cannot give the appearance of distributing surveys that have not been given such clearance. Similarly, we also cannot endorse commercial products and therefore routinely remove links to such products.

Cynthia Jones

8/25/2010 at 10:17 AM

Current methods in the recruitment process for the hiring of individuals with disabling factors is far from being fair. Example forcing a blind or visually impaired individual to disclose immediately his or her disability simply as a result from use of certain technology features incompatible with text to speech software may be conisdered indirect discriminatory actions.
Item 2- forcing an applicant to disclose his or her age as a result of forced signature agreeing to background checks immediately places the applicant in age discrimination position.
Item 3 - Allowing AVUE and JOBS USA to monopolize all recruitment and hiring for the federal government directly violates JWOD and other ADA discrimination practices that allow for disabled self-employed to retain a certain percentage of government contract work.
The federal government has every intention of forcing the citizens of the United States to become a stistic or name in a national database which is unconstitutional and forcing civilian personnel to be entered into militatry data bases via RESUMIX again is unconstitutional.
We as citizens of the United States have the right to freedom of choice in how and where we subimit our personal private information. Online databases have no security that is guranteed and therefore should be eliminated and force personnel managmentment and members to stop discrimination against civilian applicants in age, disability, and ethicnic factors where it is not needed.
Wasteful spending in government continues with use of this unconventional method leaving the disabled with a present 97.3% unemployment rate vs the national unemployment rate of 9%
I know I have been discriminated against, blocked and refused consideration becasue I am blind and cannot complete the RESUMIX application processes due to conflict in website development.
Ban Radio buttons and check boxes if you insist on continuing with this unconstitutional method of recruitment.
Just a CAPTCHA is not user friendly with adaptive software and when applying for work we are denied privacy when requiring someone to identify a visual portion of a webpage that does not disclose an alt tag such as this and I had to ask some one for help.
This is wrong. I am a college graduate with an MBA and simply bacause I am visually impaired does not give you or anyone the right to discrimiate against me during the recruitment and hiring process. This is something that needs to be ammended immeditely.

Cynthia Jones

8/25/2010 at 10:18 AM

Current methods in the recruitment process for the hiring of individuals with disabling factors is far from being fair. Example forcing a blind or visually impaired individual to disclose immediately his or her disability simply as a result from use of certain technology features incompatible with text to speech software may be conisdered indirect discriminatory actions.
Item 2- forcing an applicant to disclose his or her age as a result of forced signature agreeing to background checks immediately places the applicant in age discrimination position.
Item 3 - Allowing AVUE and JOBS USA to monopolize all recruitment and hiring for the federal government directly violates JWOD and other ADA discrimination practices that allow for disabled self-employed to retain a certain percentage of government contract work.
The federal government has every intention of forcing the citizens of the United States to become a stistic or name in a national database which is unconstitutional and forcing civilian personnel to be entered into militatry data bases via RESUMIX again is unconstitutional.
We as citizens of the United States have the right to freedom of choice in how and where we subimit our personal private information. Online databases have no security that is guranteed and therefore should be eliminated and force personnel managmentment and members to stop discrimination against civilian applicants in age, disability, and ethicnic factors where it is not needed.
Wasteful spending in government continues with use of this unconventional method leaving the disabled with a present 97.3% unemployment rate vs the national unemployment rate of 9%
I know I have been discriminated against, blocked and refused consideration becasue I am blind and cannot complete the RESUMIX application processes due to conflict in website development.
Ban Radio buttons and check boxes if you insist on continuing with this unconstitutional method of recruitment.
Just a CAPTCHA is not user friendly with adaptive software and when applying for work we are denied privacy when requiring someone to identify a visual portion of a webpage that does not disclose an alt tag such as this and I had to ask some one for help.
This is wrong. I am a college graduate with an MBA and simply bacause I am visually impaired does not give you or anyone the right to discrimiate against me during the recruitment and hiring process. This is something that needs to be ammended immeditely.

Cynthia Jones

8/25/2010 at 10:23 AM

Accessibility. CAPTCHAs must be accessible. CAPTCHAs based solely on reading text — or other visual-perception tasks — prevent visually impaired users from accessing the protected resource. Such CAPTCHAs may make a site incompatible with Section 508 in the United States. Any implementation of a CAPTCHA should allow blind users to get around the barrier, for example, by permitting users to opt for an audio or sound CAPTCHA. (Carnige Mellon, 2010) as a reminder this captcha does not have alt tags or sound as not evrey compluter is equipped with sound recognition with text to speech screen reading software.

It appears that this site is being taken over by advertisers and others. There are real issues in the federal government that concerns civil service employees; however, the posting that I have read recently do not appear to be taking this serious. Someone needs to block all of these solicitation ads.

sandra

9/10/2010 at 2:15 PM

a free iphone app can be found to help investigate further. you can get a free iphone from

Cynthia Jones

9/20/2010 at 11:29 AM

Update - After much debate and consistancy the Agency United States Department of Labor is currently in the process of ammending its recruitment policy. Current changes should be in place effective November 1, 2010.
There continues to be great disparity in hiring individuals with disabilities that are not veterans. According to statistical ratios each class (ieg; ethnic, age, disability, etc.), there should be at least a 50% apportionment of the previous class elected.
Example
No. Applicants having already addressed all other affirmative policy requirements should relflect the propose example:
All Applicants - Position No. 123456-G-07
No Applicants: 100
Non- Disabled - Hired 60 = 60/100 = 60%
Disabled = 30 = 30/100 = 30%
10% Reserved for Veterans 10 = 10/100 = 10%
In this example we observe that 60% of the applicants hired were not disabled and consisted of all ethnic,gender and age groups
Those among the disabled reflect the same with one key factor 10% reserved for veterans did not exclude veterans from non disabled or disabled thus potential imbalance may still be present.
The order reinstated by President Obama in June 2010 requiring faster and more expiditious hiring of indivduals with disabilities, and noting 100,000 jobs set aside for disabled helps, but who will hire remaining disabled individuals?
The government cannot hire everyone, however this milestone perhaps will open doors that otherwise continue to remain closed for America's more than 33 million adult disabled workers that does not include more than 22 million blind and visually impaired adults?

Cynthia Jones

9/20/2010 at 11:30 AM

Update - After much debate and consistancy the Agency United States Department of Labor is currently in the process of ammending its recruitment policy. Current changes should be in place effective November 1, 2010.
There continues to be great disparity in hiring individuals with disabilities that are not veterans. According to statistical ratios each class (ieg; ethnic, age, disability, etc.), there should be at least a 50% apportionment of the previous class elected.
Example
No. Applicants having already addressed all other affirmative policy requirements should relflect the propose example:
All Applicants - Position No. 123456-G-07
No Applicants: 100
Non- Disabled - Hired 60 = 60/100 = 60%
Disabled = 30 = 30/100 = 30%
10% Reserved for Veterans 10 = 10/100 = 10%
In this example we observe that 60% of the applicants hired were not disabled and consisted of all ethnic,gender and age groups
Those among the disabled reflect the same with one key factor 10% reserved for veterans did not exclude veterans from non disabled or disabled thus potential imbalance may still be present.
The order reinstated by President Obama in June 2010 requiring faster and more expiditious hiring of indivduals with disabilities, and noting 100,000 jobs set aside for disabled helps, but who will hire remaining disabled individuals?
The government cannot hire everyone, however this milestone perhaps will open doors that otherwise continue to remain closed for America's more than 33 million adult disabled workers that does not include more than 22 million blind and visually impaired adults?

Bryan B.

9/29/2010 at 4:09 PM

I look forward to attention to the hiring of people with disabilities that are not veterans. Especially considering that the US services will not take those of us born with disabilities to begin with. I respect that veterans have served our country and applaud them, but it seems disrespectful to all people with disabilities to put those who have are more recently disabled in front of those who have been disabled all their lives.
One thing OPM has needed to address for a very long-time is the human side of accessing employment with federal agencies for those with disabilities. The sheer lack of SPP Coordinators or their counterparts at ALL agencies, the lack of information on how this program is to function and outcomes one should expect from accessing a SPPC, and the lack of response one gets from federal employees involved in the program (from federal hiring representatives, period) is alarming.
Of the 40 or so individuals I have emailed directly with inquiries about SPP, about specific job opportunities, or for application or procedure clarification; I have received 3 (THREE) responses. Why does the US Government give employees email addresses if they don't use them (for business). What recourse can be had against those employees who do not do the job they are assigned?
And why does OPM not identify what individual or office is responsible for SPP at the upper levels, so one can ask questions or request follow-up? I understand that the program is managed at the agency, and office, level, but when so few agencies have SPPCs and there's no one to address at a higher level, one certainly has right to wonder whether the program truly exists. Certainly someone at the top is responsible for it? Who? If SPP is being phased out, say so, don't provide us false hope that we'll receive a response or allow the rumor to continue spreading among employment seekers that SPP can assist applicants with disabilities.
Frankly, because of the way I have personally been treated, I have express doubts that the program exists now; or that coordinators are trained to promote employment of disabled applicants or maintain an effort, or that hiring managers know of the program or federal policies or focus on hiring the disabled. I have heard these same doubts from others, federal employees and disabled applicants, as well as one high ranking member of the EEOC.
I don't expect a response to my emails within minutes, but when days, weeks, and deadlines for application roll by and I haven't heard from the person listed as a contact on a position posting, I feel slighted.
One more issue before enter this wordy response. The term 'Mental retardation' and 'psychological disability' to cover such a broad range of disabilities is insulting. Autism is not a mental retardation, its physiologically-based not psychologically, and mental faculties are not retarded. Communication faculties are, but not mental. My example of federal employees not responding to emails seems to indicate there are many people with communication retardation already employed at the government. It seems like I would fit right in.

Bryan B.

9/29/2010 at 4:10 PM

I look forward to attention to the hiring of people with disabilities that are not veterans. Especially considering that the US services will not take those of us born with disabilities to begin with. I respect that veterans have served our country and applaud them, but it seems disrespectful to all people with disabilities to put those who have are more recently disabled in front of those who have been disabled all their lives.
One thing OPM has needed to address for a very long-time is the human side of accessing employment with federal agencies for those with disabilities. The sheer lack of SPP Coordinators or their counterparts at ALL agencies, the lack of information on how this program is to function and outcomes one should expect from accessing a SPPC, and the lack of response one gets from federal employees involved in the program (from federal hiring representatives, period) is alarming.
Of the 40 or so individuals I have emailed directly with inquiries about SPP, about specific job opportunities, or for application or procedure clarification; I have received 3 (THREE) responses. Why does the US Government give employees email addresses if they don't use them (for business). What recourse can be had against those employees who do not do the job they are assigned?
And why does OPM not identify what individual or office is responsible for SPP at the upper levels, so one can ask questions or request follow-up? I understand that the program is managed at the agency, and office, level, but when so few agencies have SPPCs and there's no one to address at a higher level, one certainly has right to wonder whether the program truly exists. Certainly someone at the top is responsible for it? Who? If SPP is being phased out, say so, don't provide us false hope that we'll receive a response or allow the rumor to continue spreading among employment seekers that SPP can assist applicants with disabilities.
Frankly, because of the way I have personally been treated, I have express doubts that the program exists now; or that coordinators are trained to promote employment of disabled applicants or maintain an effort, or that hiring managers know of the program or federal policies or focus on hiring the disabled. I have heard these same doubts from others, federal employees and disabled applicants, as well as one high ranking member of the EEOC.
I don't expect a response to my emails within minutes, but when days, weeks, and deadlines for application roll by and I haven't heard from the person listed as a contact on a position posting, I feel slighted.
One more issue before enter this wordy response. The term 'Mental retardation' and 'psychological disability' to cover such a broad range of disabilities is insulting. Autism is not a mental retardation, its physiologically-based not psychologically, and mental faculties are not retarded. Communication faculties are, but not mental. My example of federal employees not responding to emails seems to indicate there are many people with communication retardation already employed at the government. It seems like I would fit right in.

nad

10/20/2010 at 10:18 AM

After interview how long does it take to get the confirmation from OPM that u have been selected for the job? Any exact time frame?

High Plains Drifter

10/26/2010 at 11:06 AM

OPM administers retirement and survivor benefits for those who work for the federal government. If you are thinking about going to work for them, consider that it takes them a year to change the simplest things and your survivors will have to work years to get what they are entitled to, if they don't give up. OPM is the worst of the worst when it comes to dysfunctional federal bureaucracies.

High Plains Drifter

10/26/2010 at 11:13 AM

My youngest brother was disabled before age 18. he receives disabled child benefits on my Mom's CSRS retirement. My Mom and my Dad have both now passed away. Brother is supposed to receive an increase as a dually-entitled survivor. However, it has taken us a year and we still have not gotten the change through OPM. I can''t get responses to letters, calls or emails. I've written to the White house, senators and representatives, as yet to no avail. I've written to the director and am awaiting a response. We have received no notices, no mail, no calls and no emails after now 12 months. OPM is a disgrace and an embarrassment and heads need to roll.

High Plains Drifter

11/1/2010 at 12:31 PM

Brenda K. Hughes: I responded via email to your email with the requested information. I would prefer not to give my mother, father and brother's personal information on a public forum such as this, but I have provided that as well as copies of my last two letters to O.P.M. for your reference. Please contact me with any questions you may have after reading the letters. Thank you,
Marque

Marc Glover

11/4/2010 at 7:27 AM

PAY YOUR RETIREES!!!!!!!!!1
Why have we not heard any response from OPM about these problems? They say that the reasons they are backed up are because of the amount new retirees and because of a recently purchased computer program does not work. Both are unacceptable. Everyone who is having a problem with their annuity should make a comment here and and see if we can get noticed!!! What we if we used excuses like that not to pay our taxes?

High plains drifter

11/8/2010 at 2:54 PM

I'm still waiting to hear ANYTHING on my email of November 1, 2010, and my blog of that date. I would surely love to hear SOMETHING from OPM.

High Plains Drifter

11/10/2010 at 12:40 PM

Still waiting.......

High Plains Drifter

11/10/2010 at 1:19 PM

Called retirement section in Boyers, PA. After 30 minute wait, spoke with Ms. Schwann. She could not talk to me about claim, but transferred me to Brenda K. Hughes phone number. Got her voice mail. Left detailed message and asked for return call. Waiting for her call now.....

Software

12/7/2010 at 2:24 AM

i also want to know more detail of opm?

Richard Collins

12/10/2010 at 3:33 PM

Where does the Government expect Contracting pros to come from, the clouds?
I have been trying to transition to a career in Contract Management and for months now, I have been applying to positions in the government and elsewhere for the 1102/0301 classification. All require extensive direct experience in addition to education and training. I have the education, including a JD and for the past 12 months I have been studying Contract Management, but my experience is related not direct. Although I see a great many openings, none consider indirect experience, either in their KSA's or their questionnaires. I have heard from hiring people that they cannot qualified Contracting personnel, and all I have to say is that they don't grow on trees, and wishing won't make it so, so you have to be able and willing to bring aboard mid-career transitions.

I enjoyed your post and would appreciate you for posting your experience which would be quite beneficial for others also.

Highplainsdrifter

1/4/2011 at 1:38 PM

Thank you Ms. Katherine McCune. You have resolved my brother's issues with civil service retirement as a dually entitled dependent, disabled before age 18. Thank you for your courtesies and your hard work.

ROBERT WILKINSON

1/13/2011 at 3:19 PM

I have read some of the Blogs here I am very disappointed to say the least about OPM . I have not been paid one dime I went out of The postal service on Disability retirement as of March it will be 2 years. I got an approval letter in May 2010 that stated that I should start getting paid in June 2010 still nothing. Last time I called I was told we may get to putting in your paperwork into the computer in March if we get to in then. If I don't like it call my Congressman and tell them we need more help. Try living without your retirment and see how you feel. I spent 23 years at the Postal service my disability was caused by that agency. We have to apply for retirement within a year doen't they have a ccertain time limit to do there job also. This is very frustrating try telling the bill coleectors as soon as I get paid you will.

Tassimo Direct

1/25/2011 at 1:00 AM

Im glad to see that people are actually writing about this issue in such a smart way, showing us all different sides to it.
tassimodirect.net/

Force Factor

1/26/2011 at 11:26 PM

Im glad to see that people are actually writing about this issue in such a smart way, showing us all different sides to it.
forcefactorscam.net

Force Factor

1/26/2011 at 11:28 PM

I really like your post. I found it really usefull. I am going to go to your website again some day.
forcefactorscam.net

Can anyone explain this comment I got when checking my application status in ANSWER: "You were not referred for this position because applicants with higher rights to employment with the federal government blocked you from referral."
I am a federal worker, with 3 years experience, and I am a 10 pt disabled veteran as well. I have never even seen this message before. I hope someone can help me. Thanks to all who reply.

Derek

2/22/2011 at 9:13 AM

Can anyone explain this comment I got when checking my application status in ANSWER: "You were not referred for this position because applicants with higher rights to employment with the federal government blocked you from referral."
I am a federal worker, with 3 years experience, and I am a 10 pt disabled veteran as well. I have never even seen this message before. I hope someone can help me. Thanks to all who reply.

hauhau

3/14/2011 at 9:38 PM

I am a federal worker,
http://www.thomasaboespana.net/thomas-sabo-los-transportistas-encanto.html
with 3 years experience

John G

3/28/2011 at 8:44 AM

Regarding retiree pay: Agencies are required to provide OPM with retirement estimates and currently OPM pays a percentage of the estimate while computing the final numbers. OPM could/should evaulate the retirement estimate processes of other federal agencies and if those agency estimate processes are found to produce accurate numbers, accept and use those numbers without further review. OPM should only review the numbers from those agencies that are shown to be unable to provide accurate figures. But then OPM should assist those agencies in correcting their processes to be able to produce accurate retirement figures. Since other agencies are required to produce these numbers, require them to be accurate! The end goal should be that OPM provides oversight rather than duplicating the work. It seems a waste of tax dollars to have these numbers figured twice, and not requiring the first set to be accurate enough to accept.
In the immediate short term, OPM has hired an additional 40 staffers for reviewing these numbers. OPM could provide management from the OPM into those other agencies, and essentially make those retirement calculations done by OPM.

Compensable_Vet

3/28/2011 at 1:16 PM

I applied for a federal job (state director of an agency), and, along with two other people, was called in for an interview. Only two of us showed up. The regional director made his choice. The top agency director decided when he was appointed by the President that he would make all final decisions in who is chosen. So far, he nixed the regional director's choice for another state, and then he came to our state, and did the same thing. Now, I wasn't the one chocen by the regional director, but the Agency Director wanted to meet the one the regional director had chosen. Again, he said "no." He hired someone else. Can this be legal? Does the person chosen have grounds for a complaint or lawsuit? The agency director bypassed the rule of three. The HR division went through the correct procedures, chose three, referred them to the regional director; the assistant regional director had to contact the three applicants, drive 400 miles for the interview, and set up a conference call so the regional director could hear the interview. The regional director made his choice. The agency director then met the regional director, assistant director, and the man they chose. He said no. He set up a new interview with totally new applicant and the chosen applicant. He said no again. He re-opened the announcement. Does the man who was originally chosen have a justifiable complaint?

charles

5/23/2011 at 2:33 PM

Does OPM anticipate a buy-out in this fiscal year or the next?

Judy

6/21/2011 at 5:56 AM

I have a comment about time off awards. I was given a 24 hour time off award as part of my last performance appraisal. I have use or lose time and this time off award is of no value to me.
I know it can't be donated or revoked, but shouldn't there be some way of decling a time off award if one doesn't want it, and having it removed from one's work record? If supervisors are going to give time off awards, they should check the employee's record to see if they are in a use/lose leave status before "awarding" one.
It's not that I would have prefered a cash award. I would rather my supervisor had not given me an award at all, as I didn't rate it. So, in my situation there is 24 hours "free" hours that won't be used and could have been given to someone else.

Judy

7/15/2011 at 6:32 AM

Please, I want to share my feelings on something. I have a co-worker who works all hours and never seems caught up on her work. She is always busy. By all hours, I mean she says she comes in early, stays late (sometimes till the wee hours) and comes in on weekends. I don't know if this is with management's approval or just her personal choice. But anyway, she complains almost non-stop about how tired she is, how bad she feels, is tired of being taken for granted and being frustrated. To be fair, I honestly don't know the full scope of her duties. She does admin work.
My thing is this: How can someone who professes to put in so many extra hours never be caught up on her work and why would management allow her to keep doing it?

Gene Poole

8/8/2011 at 11:51 AM

I am concerned regarding our FGLI Insurance with Met Life. Met Life puts Insurance death benefits in a TCA account or pays the complete benefit at the beneficiaries request. Some people are only earning .5% interest on the TCA accounts while Met Life may make more, why is this not disclosed? State Insurance Protection Agencies may not cover MetLife losses for TCA accounts if the company is in default. Have these issues been addressed by Met Life and the VA?

Gene Poole

8/8/2011 at 11:53 AM

I am concerned regarding our FGLI Insurance with Met Life. Met Life puts Insurance death benefits in a TCA account or pays the complete benefit at the beneficiaries request. Some people are only earning .5% interest on the TCA accounts while Met Life may make more, why is this not disclosed? State Insurance Protection Agencies may not cover MetLife losses for TCA accounts if the company is in default. Have these issues been addressed by Met Life and the VA?

Chris

9/5/2011 at 11:04 PM

Please advise me on how I go about taking the OPM Apprentice Test. Unfortunately, I've missed job opportunities because I have not taken this test and have been unable get an answer as to how I take it. Any direction or insight you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you.

Chris

9/5/2011 at 11:04 PM

Please advise me on how I go about taking the OPM Apprentice Test. Unfortunately, I've missed job opportunities because I have not taken this test and have been unable get an answer as to how I take it. Any direction or insight you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you.

Darrin

9/10/2011 at 9:52 PM

I am looking to get a federal job that requires an MBA that is accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP).
My program is accredited by the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE). Which was just recognized by the Deparent of Education/ the Council for Higher Education Accreditation this January. How can I get the agency to update it's policy?

Darrin

9/10/2011 at 9:53 PM

I am looking to get a federal job that requires an MBA that is accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP).
My program is accredited by the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE). Which was just recognized by the Deparent of Education/ the Council for Higher Education Accreditation this January. How can I get the agency to update it's policy?

Mark Corcoran

9/22/2011 at 10:35 PM

An application I submitted through USA Jobs was rejected by stating that I was unqualified for the position. I believe this to be an invalid rejection. I have no way to get in touch with anyone at this agency since the listed contact person's telephone number has no voicemail and it is never answered. Please tell me how to contact someone to discuss this problem. I will continue to pursue this issue until I get an answer.

Mark Corcoran

9/22/2011 at 10:36 PM

An application I submitted through USA Jobs was rejected by stating that I was unqualified for the position. I believe this to be an invalid rejection. I have no way to get in touch with anyone at this agency since the listed contact person's telephone number has no voicemail and it is never answered. Please tell me how to contact someone to discuss this problem. I will continue to pursue this issue until I get an answer.

Mark Corcoran

9/23/2011 at 3:26 PM

I received a thoughtful and detailed response to my question which was submitted on 9/22/2011 at 10:36 PM.
Thank you for a quick and thorough response.

mike

10/25/2011 at 4:40 AM

Great post, i agree with you. Some useful points there. Kenyajobtube.blogspot

Mike

10/25/2011 at 8:29 AM

Thanks for opening up this part of your website, I wish you the best in your endeavors. "Alcachofa":http://www.alcachofadiet.org

Pet

12/16/2011 at 2:22 PM

you are nice

chess sets

1/22/2012 at 7:57 AM

I enjoyed reading the discussion in this post.

Henry Gorin

2/6/2012 at 1:20 PM

I am an employee under CSRS retirement plans. My service computation date is Feb 12, 1968. I reached 41 years- 11 months of service January 12, 2010. Since then I retirement deduction have been taken from my pay. What will be the disposition of those retirement deductions when I decide to retire?

Franco

2/23/2012 at 11:10 PM

Pra invertir offshore con OPM www.paraisosfiscales.org

OPM

2/23/2012 at 11:11 PM

Para invertir offshore con OPM http://www.paraisosfiscales.org

Diana Colfack

2/29/2012 at 7:41 PM

I am retiring and would like the Presidential letter. Can my partner receive one also? Thanks.

Diana Colfack

2/29/2012 at 7:41 PM

I am retiring and would like the Presidential letter. Can my partner receive one also? Thanks.

Diana Colfack

2/29/2012 at 7:41 PM

I am retiring and would like the Presidential letter. Can my partner receive one also? Thanks.

Sam Martin

4/7/2012 at 9:47 AM

I have had trouble with the VA Medical Center in Salem,Va. There is a lot of nepotism in hiring.I am a 10 point Viet Nam veteran and am continually having trouble getteing a job here. The VA hires people who were never in service,famiy, and friends over vetewrans.They also disregard vets with preference. Who can I contact to look into these rule violations?

Sam Martin

4/7/2012 at 9:49 AM

I have had trouble with the VA Medical Center in Salem,Va. There is a lot of nepotism in hiring.I am a 10 point Viet Nam veteran and am continually having trouble getteing a job here. The VA hires people who were never in service,famiy, and friends over vetewrans.They also disregard vets with preference. Who can I contact to look into these rule violations?

nopkana

5/7/2012 at 8:54 PM

I want to know about MR. siri sukosol.(206608) he died since oct 2011.
The US embassy sent his document to head office about Jan 2012 .
Now his family get nothing from opm.
Please tell me what is the problem?
Everybody of his family wait for your answer. thank in advance.

Connie Brown

5/9/2012 at 10:27 AM

I have a question that I am having a hard time finding and definding in black/white.
According to Title 5, United States Code dtd 2003 Chapteer 21- Definitions: 2101.
the definition for "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard; and "uniformed services" means the armed forces, the commisioned corps of the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The GPPA Chapter 6 page 6-6 also states that the "uniformed services" consist of the Groups mentioned above.
Also page 6-6 of the GPAA para 1-6b (1)defines a military retiree "for leave accrual purposes, a military retiree is any member or former member of the "uniformed services."
So based on the definition above a Retired fulltime National Guard Enlisted Title 32 is not considered or fall under the definiton "uniformed service" and/or "Armed Forces."
So is my understanding correct a fulltime National Guard Retiree is not considered a "military retiree"?
For example I have 10 years Active Duty title 10 from 1988 to 1999. I ETSed and went into the National Guard without a break in service and Retired from the Guard Feb 2012.
Based on the definition does my Title 10 time count towards block 31 SF 50 (SCD (Leave) and towards the mandatory remarks from Table 9-1 Rule 2 Creditable Military Service?

Connie Brown

5/9/2012 at 10:29 AM

I have a question that I am having a hard time finding and definding in black/white.
According to Title 5, United States Code dtd 2003 Chapteer 21- Definitions: 2101.
the definition for "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard; and "uniformed services" means the armed forces, the commisioned corps of the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The GPPA Chapter 6 page 6-6 also states that the "uniformed services" consist of the Groups mentioned above.
Also page 6-6 of the GPAA para 1-6b (1)defines a military retiree "for leave accrual purposes, a military retiree is any member or former member of the "uniformed services."
So based on the definition above a Retired fulltime National Guard Enlisted Title 32 is not considered or fall under the definiton "uniformed service" and/or "Armed Forces."
So is my understanding correct a fulltime National Guard Retiree is not considered a "military retiree"?
For example I have 10 years Active Duty title 10 from 1988 to 1999. I ETSed and went into the National Guard without a break in service and Retired from the Guard Feb 2012.
Based on the definition does my Title 10 time count towards block 31 SF 50 (SCD (Leave) and towards the mandatory remarks from Table 9-1 Rule 2 Creditable Military Service?

Connie Brown

5/9/2012 at 10:48 AM

I have a question that I am having a hard time finding and definding in black/white.
According to Title 5, United States Code dtd 2003 Chapteer 21- Definitions: 2101.
the definition for "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard; and "uniformed services" means the armed forces, the commisioned corps of the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The GPPA Chapter 6 page 6-6 also states that the "uniformed services" consist of the Groups mentioned above.
Also page 6-6 of the GPAA para 1-6b (1)defines a military retiree "for leave accrual purposes, a military retiree is any member or former member of the "uniformed services."
So based on the definition above a Retired fulltime National Guard Enlisted Title 32 is not considered or fall under the definiton "uniformed service" and/or "Armed Forces."
So is my understanding correct a fulltime National Guard Retiree is not considered a "military retiree"?
For example I have 10 years Active Duty title 10 from 1988 to 1999. I ETSed and went into the National Guard without a break in service and Retired from the Guard Feb 2012.
Based on the definition does my Title 10 time count towards block 31 SF 50 (SCD (Leave) and towards the mandatory remarks from Table 9-1 Rule 2 Creditable Military Service?

Connie Brown

5/9/2012 at 10:49 AM

I have a question that I am having a hard time finding and definding in black/white.
According to Title 5, United States Code dtd 2003 Chapter 21- Definitions: 2101.
the definition for "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard; and "uniformed services" means the armed forces, the commisioned corps of the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The GPPA Chapter 6 page 6-6 also states that the "uniformed services" consist of the Groups mentioned above.
Also page 6-6 of the GPAA para 1-6b (1)defines a military retiree "for leave accrual purposes, a military retiree is any member or former member of the "uniformed services."
So based on the definition above a Retired fulltime National Guard Enlisted Title 32 is not considered or fall under the definiton "uniformed service" and/or "Armed Forces."
So is my understanding correct a fulltime National Guard Retiree is not considered a "military retiree"?
For example I have 10 years Active Duty title 10 from 1988 to 1999. I ETSed and went into the National Guard without a break in service and Retired from the Guard Feb 2012.
Based on the definition does my Title 10 time count towards block 31 SF 50 (SCD (Leave) and towards the mandatory remarks from Table 9-1 Rule 2 Creditable Military Service?

Archie Minneman

7/24/2012 at 5:34 PM

I see someone asked the very same question I have. She asked it back in July of 2010. Unfortunately there is no/no answer or response or anything so I have no idea if she ever got an answer or resolved her question. What good is this system to show, yes, someone else asked the same question but too bad, you don't get an answer?? I need an award letter for social security, where do I get one?? Who do I need to see??

Archie Minneman

7/24/2012 at 5:35 PM

I see someone asked the very same question I have. She asked it back in July of 2010. Unfortunately there is no/no answer or response or anything so I have no idea if she ever got an answer or resolved her question. What good is this system to show, yes, someone else asked the same question but too bad, you don't get an answer?? I need an award letter for social security, where do I get one?? Who do I need to see??

Scott Jobs

9/17/2012 at 4:09 PM

OPM I need help with this... please advise or please advice http://hornelljobs.com

Thanks Scott

Scott Jobs

9/17/2012 at 4:11 PM

OPM I need help with this... please advise or please advice http://hornelljobs.com

Thanks Scott

Scott Jobs

9/17/2012 at 4:11 PM

OPM I need help with this... please advise or please advice http://hornelljobs.com

Thanks Scott

Will

1/31/2013 at 9:40 AM

I suggest this site to my friends so it could be useful & informative for them also. <a href="http://www.goodsgarden.com" target="_blank">goodsgarden</a> Great stuff.

william stewart

4/8/2013 at 4:28 PM

I would like to have a statement of how my annuity was figured. Calculations and numbers included. Called opm about repaying retirement money and they had no idea.

Kelly

9/13/2013 at 10:33 AM

I want to make a comment on your News page and I had to search all over your website to find this Comment block. May I suggest a Feedback link? I won't look at the FAQ because it is not a question. My comment - Your News main page is terrible. Topics are laid on top of one another that makes it difficult for one to read. Is OPM going to fix this?

Debra Close

7/21/2014 at 10:34 PM

Hello, I watched the Director of OPM last week about the GS system. Ms. Archuleta stated that there are only 6 classification specialist over OPM. Why not hire more classifiers and develop a significant classification oversight committee? The reason of only have 6 people at OPM is completely unacceptable. Apparently, from the article in the Huffington Post the VA is potentially wasted 24 million dollars in over-graded or misclassified positions and that is just in one year. The spreadsheets go back to only 1 year, and demonstrates the pay grade difference only. If you take the 24 million and time by the average life of a federal employee which is 30 years, this amounts to 700 plus million dollars. The employees do not lose their pay if they are downgraded. The VA has not implemented oversight and accountability to stop the misclassifications. As a taxpayer, I ask OPM takes a hard look at this fraud, waste, and abuse and look at the obvious..add more oversight staff, remove the delegated classification authority from federal agencies if it is abused.

Ed

8/11/2014 at 12:54 PM

Can someone explain why the opm manual says all jobs are OPEN and Fair Competition, and then jobs like this are allowed to post.

WHO MAY APPLY: Current Permanent Forest Service employees in the competitive service who are eligible for a Temporary Promotion or Detail. Candidates outside the Forest Service will not be considered.

Lynn

12/17/2014 at 3:21 PM

My brother is a federal employee. He has applied for 3 positions in order to advance out of his GS4 position. He is a 26 year army veteran under age 50 with a 10% disability rating. Each time, after being told the job was his, he had the proverbial rug jerked out from under him and lost the positions because in 2 cases, military spouse preference was used, and in one case, the lt col direct hired one of her retiring cronies. How can anyone ever expect to advance when a job is offered to you and then repeatedly taken away when a spouse who has preference, but perhaps not the skillset in the area you were applying gets preference? It sounds like a very unfair system.

Ivey

12/30/2014 at 10:22 AM

Does anyone know if it is possible for a Captain in the US Army to rate a GS-11 civilian employee?

Denotes a required field.

Name

Email Address

Comment

* User Agreement:

To post this comment you must agree to the terms outlined in the User Agreement

Unexpected Error

There was an unexpected error when performing your action.

Your error has been logged and the appropriate people notified. You may close this message and try your command again, perhaps after refreshing the page. If you continue to experience issues, please notify the site administrator.